New Domain
8 years ago
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
What is the purpose of comments on main stream news articles
Here lately I have been posting in the comments sections of several mainstream News articles, and have noticed a trend. The trend is ‘Censorship’ of People or persons that apparently don’t follow the owners of these organizations agendas, or maybe their sponsors.
What is the purpose of having comments sections attached to their articles? One would assume they were for the purpose of allowing an individual an ‘equal opportunity’ to exercise their ‘personal private’ first amendment rights ‘allegedly secured’ by the first amendment of the Constitution of these United States of America.
One would assume these sections were a means provided to the ‘Private Citizens’ to engage in reasonable and rational discourse in the ‘main stream Media’. This does not seem to be the case at all in reality. While they give the appearance of offering average Citizens a means to express themselves, their moderators seem to be very selective in what they allow to be published and remove any and sometimes ALL comments made by ‘certain individuals’.
The right to freedom of speech and press secured to People by the first amendment and granted to persons (Main Stream News Agencies) created by the law was never intended to secure any right to slander and or printed libelous material. It seems to be used for that purpose mostly (to slander and or print libelous material) by both People and persons. As a member of the American society I feel it is a irresponsible and irrational use of this right that all People have to use it to slander, defame, and act like children on a school yard.
The major news agencies which actually don’t have any ‘natural rights’ (See Note 1 & 1a) secured by any Law all draw on this amendment to secure their ‘privileges’. (See Note 2) These agencies (News Media) are not People and as such have no ‘natural rights’ secured by any law. They are ‘persons’ which are a creation of our law. In Law all people are considered persons, but not all persons are People.
The moderators of these agencies will use all sorts of claims to remove from their comments anything that does not fit their agenda. I do moderate my own pages. Over the course of the last year or so what I have censured are references to porn, where to get drugs from Canada, where to get pecker pumps, other advertisements and the likes, and never any discourse of a person (Citizen with something to say and not an advertisement that links to them for some monetary purpose.).
I have posted to the Washington Post, and the USA Today comments merely to be removed. I was NEUTRAL in what I had to say other than maybe I feel our ‘public servants’ (See Note 3) are serving us. I see articles like http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/wealthier-people-more-likely-than-poorer-to-lie-or-cheat-researchers-find.html or http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74168.html or http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ousted-ceo-largest-us-electric-company-says-duke-energy-wanted-merger-exit-as-costs-rose/2012/07/19/gJQAJKm0wW_story.html or http://www.freep.com/article/20120731/BUSINESS07/120731004/Gas-prices-rise-for-fourth-consecutive-week?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs and they are quickly removed. WHY? Censorship is all I can think.
Recently this http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2212726/in-wake-backdating-dwis-goes-beyond.html article has caught my attention. This is a serious problem!!! I feel that We the People have a similar problem nationwide which needs to be addressed. I am thankful to the News Observer for allowing me to post to the comments here.
Recently in a private communication (Email) between myself and a local Law Professor he has implied that the States Laws are not a matter of Public Record and that Counties are not required to make available the Public Laws to ‘Private Citizens’ in a system of libraries. This IS how and WHY Officials frequently by their own admission in the article supra can make their own rules and apply them.
The Rules that Regulate THEM are published, at the Tax Payers’ Expense but according to the Law Professor is not a matter of Public Record which Counties are required to make available to the Public. If this IS a fact is it any wonder We as a Nation are in trouble?
What is the purpose of having comments sections attached to their articles? One would assume they were for the purpose of allowing an individual an ‘equal opportunity’ to exercise their ‘personal private’ first amendment rights ‘allegedly secured’ by the first amendment of the Constitution of these United States of America.
One would assume these sections were a means provided to the ‘Private Citizens’ to engage in reasonable and rational discourse in the ‘main stream Media’. This does not seem to be the case at all in reality. While they give the appearance of offering average Citizens a means to express themselves, their moderators seem to be very selective in what they allow to be published and remove any and sometimes ALL comments made by ‘certain individuals’.
The right to freedom of speech and press secured to People by the first amendment and granted to persons (Main Stream News Agencies) created by the law was never intended to secure any right to slander and or printed libelous material. It seems to be used for that purpose mostly (to slander and or print libelous material) by both People and persons. As a member of the American society I feel it is a irresponsible and irrational use of this right that all People have to use it to slander, defame, and act like children on a school yard.
The major news agencies which actually don’t have any ‘natural rights’ (See Note 1 & 1a) secured by any Law all draw on this amendment to secure their ‘privileges’. (See Note 2) These agencies (News Media) are not People and as such have no ‘natural rights’ secured by any law. They are ‘persons’ which are a creation of our law. In Law all people are considered persons, but not all persons are People.
The moderators of these agencies will use all sorts of claims to remove from their comments anything that does not fit their agenda. I do moderate my own pages. Over the course of the last year or so what I have censured are references to porn, where to get drugs from Canada, where to get pecker pumps, other advertisements and the likes, and never any discourse of a person (Citizen with something to say and not an advertisement that links to them for some monetary purpose.).
I have posted to the Washington Post, and the USA Today comments merely to be removed. I was NEUTRAL in what I had to say other than maybe I feel our ‘public servants’ (See Note 3) are serving us. I see articles like http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/wealthier-people-more-likely-than-poorer-to-lie-or-cheat-researchers-find.html or http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74168.html or http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ousted-ceo-largest-us-electric-company-says-duke-energy-wanted-merger-exit-as-costs-rose/2012/07/19/gJQAJKm0wW_story.html or http://www.freep.com/article/20120731/BUSINESS07/120731004/Gas-prices-rise-for-fourth-consecutive-week?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs and they are quickly removed. WHY? Censorship is all I can think.
Recently this http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/22/2212726/in-wake-backdating-dwis-goes-beyond.html article has caught my attention. This is a serious problem!!! I feel that We the People have a similar problem nationwide which needs to be addressed. I am thankful to the News Observer for allowing me to post to the comments here.
Recently in a private communication (Email) between myself and a local Law Professor he has implied that the States Laws are not a matter of Public Record and that Counties are not required to make available the Public Laws to ‘Private Citizens’ in a system of libraries. This IS how and WHY Officials frequently by their own admission in the article supra can make their own rules and apply them.
The Rules that Regulate THEM are published, at the Tax Payers’ Expense but according to the Law Professor is not a matter of Public Record which Counties are required to make available to the Public. If this IS a fact is it any wonder We as a Nation are in trouble?
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Police Misconduct
Judge wants probe into Oakland police shootings
The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Jun. 1, 2012 - 7:24 am
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531120/judge-wants-probe-into-oakland.html
Thank you Judge Henderson. I feel that reform is needed in all Police investigations. To have the Department’s internal affairs investigate their own officers is akin to having a drug smuggler investigate a drug pusher in my opinion. I feel that there needs to be groups of private Citizens selected to conduct investigations into claims of Official Misconduct made against ALL governmental employees.
I understand that such private Citizens should have a least fundamental understanding of the difference between legislatively created “civil rights” and the natural rights all People are born with. Said private Citizens could be volunteers or selected in a similar fashion as a jury with at least one person properly taught the fundamental principles of American Jurisprudence such as a Constitutional Law Professor.
Frankly, I feel that our bodies of public servants are riddled with corruption, and lack of accountability. It seems they are lacking in a proper training in ethics, and conflicts of interests. I feel the problem goes far deeper than just the Police internal affairs investigations. It appears there is a similar process in all levels of government. They investigate themselves which to me defiantly appears to be a conflict of interests between what is best to serve the private Citizens and governmental agencies and their agents.
To have members of a club or class of persons investigate members of their own club or class of persons certainly leaves the door open to cronyism, favoritism, and bias.
The Associated Press
Published: Friday, Jun. 1, 2012 - 7:24 am
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/01/4531120/judge-wants-probe-into-oakland.html
Thank you Judge Henderson. I feel that reform is needed in all Police investigations. To have the Department’s internal affairs investigate their own officers is akin to having a drug smuggler investigate a drug pusher in my opinion. I feel that there needs to be groups of private Citizens selected to conduct investigations into claims of Official Misconduct made against ALL governmental employees.
I understand that such private Citizens should have a least fundamental understanding of the difference between legislatively created “civil rights” and the natural rights all People are born with. Said private Citizens could be volunteers or selected in a similar fashion as a jury with at least one person properly taught the fundamental principles of American Jurisprudence such as a Constitutional Law Professor.
Frankly, I feel that our bodies of public servants are riddled with corruption, and lack of accountability. It seems they are lacking in a proper training in ethics, and conflicts of interests. I feel the problem goes far deeper than just the Police internal affairs investigations. It appears there is a similar process in all levels of government. They investigate themselves which to me defiantly appears to be a conflict of interests between what is best to serve the private Citizens and governmental agencies and their agents.
To have members of a club or class of persons investigate members of their own club or class of persons certainly leaves the door open to cronyism, favoritism, and bias.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Natural rights, "Civil right[s]" & "civil rights" comparison
In Law there is a difference between “Civil Rights”; and “civil rights”. As evidence of this fact I offer the following Law Cites:
• Natural rights. Those that grow out of the nature of man and depend on his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society. In re Gogabashvele's Estate, 195 Cal. App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Retr. 77, 91. (Ref. BLD. Pg. 1027) (“Civil rights”)
• “Civil rights” are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government. They consist of the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the parental and marital power, and the like. They are absolute rights of persons, the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property, as regulated and protected by law. They are the rights which according to the fundamental principles of American government, are inalienable. People v. Washington (1869) 36 C 658, 6622.
• A “civil right” is a right given and protected by law, and a persons enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it. Nickell v Rosenfield (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P 760
At first appearance there seems to be contradictory statements in these two examples. The first citation clearly says “Civil Rights” are absolute, and inalienable, they are not dependent on government. This is in agreement with what our second President said. The second citation clearly indicates that “civil rights” are created, granted, protected, and controlled by government. Are there conflicting statements here? If so, one or the other is wrong, and should be stricken from the public records but, this is not the case.
So, what is the difference? The difference is in the way the words are used (grammar) and their Capitalization. Note the use of the quotation marks. They indicate that the term is specific, and that spelling is crucial. Without the proper capitalization and quotation marks (grammar) the meaning is altered. Sic, there is a difference between the term “Civil right[s]” and the term “civil right[s]”.
There is evidence of the use of capitalization to create different terms in the Constitution of these united States. The terms Citizen and citizen, Person and person, state and State, are in fact different and well defined by Law. For now lets stay focused on the terms “Civil Right” and “civil right”. To help understand this better lets look at the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. First let us go to the Declaration.
In the first paragraph the first sentence you will find these terms “the Laws of Nature, and of Natures God . .”, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. . .”
So what are the Laws of Nature, and of Natures God? The Laws of nature are things such as gravity, volcanic eruptions, tornado's, hurricanes, earth quakes, lightning, and other 'natural events' beyond the scope of mankind's ability to control. Natures God is the entity over all Natural or Supernatural events. Neither men nor government enjoy such powers or abilities (Probably a good thing).
The following is a quote of John Adams our second President:
• “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislature of the Universe.” John Adams
These words of John Adams fit the description of “Civil Rights.” I suspect he knew and understood what he was saying. He is suggesting that these rights are outside the control of governments or other men (Even democracy itself.). So who or what is the Great Legislature of the Universe? I suspect John Adams was referring to Natures God that is referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
In the second paragraph of the Declaration it states the following:: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” By this I would conclude that the men that wrote this document agreed that there is a higher authority than man or government (Natures God), and this higher authority had created mankind and, granted men the Natural Rights they have. No particular God is actually mentioned other than a Creator or Natures God in either document.
Just who or what the Creator or Natures God is left to the opinion of the reader, and their natural right to that opinion is secured by the first amendment which is law. Freemen have a natural right (“Civil right”) to their own belief as to who or what the Creator or the God of Nature is and the founders secured this “Civil right” for a purpose. All men are free to their own beliefs. This is an inherent right which in America is secured by the Constitution at the First Amendment.
• “Governments do not grant rights, for they are unalienable rights which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757.
This case Law is further evidence that all People are born with “Civil rights”, and that this government (American) was created by the People and charged it with the obligation to secure and protect them. In relation to government in America the People are the sovereign. This is evidenced by the following case law:
• “Under our system (American), the people who are (in England) called subjects, are here the sovereign.” U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208;
• “The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wend.9.20
• “In our country the people are sovereign...” AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
These cases have never been over turned. They are part of the recorded Common Law. We The People of these united States of America created a body of servants known as the United States government, as well as State, County, Township, City, and Towns government[s]. They were created for the sole purpose of serving the People whom created them. Any and all the authority ‘public servants’ (government personnel) have was delegated to them by our (The People) consent. I seriously doubt that free men would consent to being ruled over or delegate any authority to their servants to legislatively abridge their “Civil right[s]”, at least not anyone that was educated and of sound judgment.
That is the Law and the Law still stands today. Good common sense tells you that We never delegated to our servants any authority to enslave us or abridge our “Civil right[s]”. Many people will suggest otherwise, but common sense would suggest not. Who in their right mind would elect to be a slave, or to be ruled over without any regard of their natural rights?
So just what is a “civil right”? We have determined that it is not a “Civil right” or a natural right, inalienable right, or an inherent right. It must be that a “civil right” is a legislatively created right referenced supra. These “civil rights” are offered to a lesser class of citizens, people, persons, and individuals. People, Persons, and Citizens have natural rights (“Civil rights”). Who are these lesser class people, persons, individuals, and citizens? They are not natural born Citizens, Persons, or People. They are citizens, persons, and people created by Law.
Created by Law you ask? How can a person be created by Law? Ok here is the answer. Any Person naturally born in any of the 50 states of the American union of nations (several states) are ‘Citizens’ of the state wherein they were born. They are sovereign members of the State body Politic whom the public servants serve. They are a 'natural born' a free Person, Citizen, Individual, a member of the Posterity of People that are the Sovereigns in the United States by Law. They are a product of Natures Law, and Natures God nothing more nothing less. They have unalienable natural rights granted them by the Laws of Nature and Natures God which no man or government can legislate away. They are NOT subjects, serfs, or slaves to any man or government they created.
Our Laws clearly state that 'if you are not born in any of the 50 states' united under the American Constitution 'you are an immigrant, a traveler, a naturalized citizen, person, individual, or body of people or persons such as government or a corporation'. 'These are the persons created by Law' that enjoy the protections of their “civil rights”; which are created, granted, and controlled by Law/government. Naturalized citizens (persons); here in the United States do not hold the same political, and social status as a 'natural born' state Citizen. This can be easily proven at Article II Section I the fifth clause of our Constitution where it states: “No person except a 'natural born Citizen', or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
If you are not born in one of the several states you are not a state Citizen, nor are you a Citizen (Note the capitalization [C]) of the United States, and cannot be elected President. You may be a 'citizen of the United States' (Note the capitalization [c]) that has “civil right[s]” but you are not a Citizen. 'Prior to the adoption of the Constitution there were not any Citizens of the United States as the Law defines them. The union several states, and their State governments did not exist'' until after the adoption of our Constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution the Colonies became States in the ‘union’ of State governments and all the 'free Persons, People, Individuals' living within the several states became”Citizens of the state within the union of nations within the United States of America”.
The People that participated in the founding of our American Republic were not born in the United States. The Colonies were not States in the union until after the Constitution was adopted. Therefore, there were no 'natural born Citizens' at the time of the adoption that meet the qualifications of President. They granted full Citizen[ship] of the United States to these 'free People'. They were not excluded from being President . . . ‘at the time of Adoption . . . '. This was the purpose of this phrase. Today to be a “Citizen (or national) of the United States”; 'you must be born a state Citizen'. All others are 'citizens of the United States' or travelers and do not enjoy the same social and Political status as American nationals (state Citizens). Further, “civil right[s]”; have not been extended to these persons that allows for them to hold the high office of President. There are some people pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to change this qualification for our Executive office.
Again ‘citizens of the United States’ are not the same as ‘state Citizens’. Just about anyone can become a naturalized citizen of the United States, person, or individual “subject to its jurisdiction” (14th Amendment) by agreement. This includes unwitting state Citizens. A Citizen can relinquish their status as a state Citizen, and except the status of being a 'citizen of the United States'. Truth is most having done so and are not aware of it. Many do so with no understanding of it. Why, because they are not properly educated, or advised about the Law[s] of this land. To hold the social political status of state Citizen you must be a natural born state Citizen. Neither naturalization, nor, any Law made by men or government can change where you are born. I personally feel it is by design.
The Law says: “Governments do not grant rights, for they are unalienable rights which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” So how can you waive them? Ignorance, foolhardiness, lack of a proper education, and agreement, are a few examples. Many People have no idea where their “Civil rights” come from much less what they actually are. Their “Civil rights” are violated frequently because they don’t know what they are. They never attempt to enforce them or have them enforced because they don't know how. The trust of the majority People is being violated due to their own willful ignorance (apathy/complacency).
George Washington suggested that the Freemen could loose their Republic if the did not know the Law. I feel we are well on our way. The People trustingly elect, and allow to be hired People to serve them. They 'assume' that these servants know what their “Civil rights” are, and that their servants would never violate them. Their assumptions are false, and not well founded. The fact is that the majority of their elected and hired servants are as ignorant as they are when it comes to knowing the difference between a “Civil right”; and “civil right”. Ever heard the term “that ignorance of the Law is no excuse”?
It is not the Courts (Judiciary) position to teach People the Law, nor is it the duty of the Legislative or Executive branches of government. It is the duty, responsibility, and obligation of the American Citizens to know and understand their Law and Law[s] of this land which regulate and control their servants. Sadly the majority is failing in this obligation. Their failure to uphold their obligations is leading to not only their “Civil rights” being violated, but those of others as well.
You ask how can your failure to uphold your obligation to know and understand American jurisprudence possibly affect other person’s rights. Well first of all if you do not know what your rights are you certainly have no idea what mine are. Thus, if you would see someone violating my rights you would not know my rights were being violated. I could not rely on you as a 'reliable witness' of the violation of my rights. Then if I were to have a witness that knew my rights were violated you could not be Jurist from among my peers. My peers would know where my rights came from, and what they were. They would understand the Law of this nation.
The same would be true if I were charged. My peers would understand that he person bringing the charge would have to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I had injured them or their property. My peers would understand that under the Common law if no injury or damage exists there is no right to action. Further, my peers would also understand that if I was charged with an offence, and I claimed the Law unconstitutional, that they had the right to make that determination. This why they call it 'trial BY jury'.
• “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice US Supreme Court
• “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the fact.” Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Justice 1796, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
• “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes US supreme Court 1902.
• “The law itself is on trial as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F Stone 12th Chief Justice US supreme Court 1941
• “The pages of history shine on instances of the juries exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge. . .” US V. Dougherty. 473 F. 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)
Judges today frequently suggest that the Jury can only hear and decide facts, and that they will decide the law. If you knew what your rights where when I made the claim of a violation of my rights, and my witness supported my claim, you would likely do the right thing, and have the offender punished. In the event that I was charged with violating some Law/policy 'you' may determine the Law itself in error and repugnant to the Constitution and render a not guilty verdict. This is known as 'jury nullification' which would set a president for the next Citizen that were charged with a violation of repugnant (bad) Law.
But if you setting as a Jury member have no idea what your rights are, you most certainly cannot know what mine are and the result of said trial would have a negative affect on me, as well as, set a president (Case Law) to be used against other free Persons. One day it could be you on trail counting on your 'peers' to protect your rights. Would you prefer a member of the Posterity of People that knew and understood your rights to be a 'jurist' in your case, or a person that was totally ignorant of your rights and the Law?
• “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”-- Ayn Rand
• “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury V Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176. (1803)
People ask: Well if none of the three branches of government have any obligation to teach People what their natural rights are, or the difference between a “Civil right” and ”civil right”; how are they to know? This leads this author to ask you if our elected servants are in fact servants and have no obligation to instruct or otherwise teach People these things who is. The authors’ assumption would be our parents, grandparents, other family, friends, neighbors, and other well intentioned members of our communities such as Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Pastors, and Preachers.
Understand that this author does not believe in forcing any particular religion on People. That is a decision to be made by an individual of his or her own free will. This author claims to not be at all religious. However, I acknowledge that it is my belief there are authorities 'much higher than men or governments'.
• “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because they have rejected it. (Ref: King James Bible Hosea 4)
Even though this author is not at all religious I would agree that People are destroyed or enslaved by willful ignorance, or a lack of knowledge. Further, it is the opinion of this author that if anyone other than parents, grandparents, family, and friends has an obligation to instruct or teach People it would be the religious leaders. Personally this author feels they are failing in this obligation. In concluding this Chapter this author would say that prudent People would teach or instruct their families, friends, and neighbors just what the difference between natural rights, “Civil rights”; and ”civil rights” are. As parents, grandparents, family, friends, and good neighbors we share in this obligation to our children, grandchildren, and each other.
• Quoting from one of the founders of this nation Thomas Jefferson; “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
This Sovereign American national state Citizen whole heartedly agrees with the expressed opinion of Mr. Jefferson..
Jimmy Freeman
• Natural rights. Those that grow out of the nature of man and depend on his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society. In re Gogabashvele's Estate, 195 Cal. App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Retr. 77, 91. (Ref. BLD. Pg. 1027) (“Civil rights”)
• “Civil rights” are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of government. They consist of the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the parental and marital power, and the like. They are absolute rights of persons, the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property, as regulated and protected by law. They are the rights which according to the fundamental principles of American government, are inalienable. People v. Washington (1869) 36 C 658, 6622.
• A “civil right” is a right given and protected by law, and a persons enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it. Nickell v Rosenfield (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P 760
At first appearance there seems to be contradictory statements in these two examples. The first citation clearly says “Civil Rights” are absolute, and inalienable, they are not dependent on government. This is in agreement with what our second President said. The second citation clearly indicates that “civil rights” are created, granted, protected, and controlled by government. Are there conflicting statements here? If so, one or the other is wrong, and should be stricken from the public records but, this is not the case.
So, what is the difference? The difference is in the way the words are used (grammar) and their Capitalization. Note the use of the quotation marks. They indicate that the term is specific, and that spelling is crucial. Without the proper capitalization and quotation marks (grammar) the meaning is altered. Sic, there is a difference between the term “Civil right[s]” and the term “civil right[s]”.
There is evidence of the use of capitalization to create different terms in the Constitution of these united States. The terms Citizen and citizen, Person and person, state and State, are in fact different and well defined by Law. For now lets stay focused on the terms “Civil Right” and “civil right”. To help understand this better lets look at the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. First let us go to the Declaration.
In the first paragraph the first sentence you will find these terms “the Laws of Nature, and of Natures God . .”, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. . .”
So what are the Laws of Nature, and of Natures God? The Laws of nature are things such as gravity, volcanic eruptions, tornado's, hurricanes, earth quakes, lightning, and other 'natural events' beyond the scope of mankind's ability to control. Natures God is the entity over all Natural or Supernatural events. Neither men nor government enjoy such powers or abilities (Probably a good thing).
The following is a quote of John Adams our second President:
• “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislature of the Universe.” John Adams
These words of John Adams fit the description of “Civil Rights.” I suspect he knew and understood what he was saying. He is suggesting that these rights are outside the control of governments or other men (Even democracy itself.). So who or what is the Great Legislature of the Universe? I suspect John Adams was referring to Natures God that is referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
In the second paragraph of the Declaration it states the following:: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” By this I would conclude that the men that wrote this document agreed that there is a higher authority than man or government (Natures God), and this higher authority had created mankind and, granted men the Natural Rights they have. No particular God is actually mentioned other than a Creator or Natures God in either document.
Just who or what the Creator or Natures God is left to the opinion of the reader, and their natural right to that opinion is secured by the first amendment which is law. Freemen have a natural right (“Civil right”) to their own belief as to who or what the Creator or the God of Nature is and the founders secured this “Civil right” for a purpose. All men are free to their own beliefs. This is an inherent right which in America is secured by the Constitution at the First Amendment.
• “Governments do not grant rights, for they are unalienable rights which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757.
This case Law is further evidence that all People are born with “Civil rights”, and that this government (American) was created by the People and charged it with the obligation to secure and protect them. In relation to government in America the People are the sovereign. This is evidenced by the following case law:
• “Under our system (American), the people who are (in England) called subjects, are here the sovereign.” U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208;
• “The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wend.9.20
• “In our country the people are sovereign...” AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
These cases have never been over turned. They are part of the recorded Common Law. We The People of these united States of America created a body of servants known as the United States government, as well as State, County, Township, City, and Towns government[s]. They were created for the sole purpose of serving the People whom created them. Any and all the authority ‘public servants’ (government personnel) have was delegated to them by our (The People) consent. I seriously doubt that free men would consent to being ruled over or delegate any authority to their servants to legislatively abridge their “Civil right[s]”, at least not anyone that was educated and of sound judgment.
That is the Law and the Law still stands today. Good common sense tells you that We never delegated to our servants any authority to enslave us or abridge our “Civil right[s]”. Many people will suggest otherwise, but common sense would suggest not. Who in their right mind would elect to be a slave, or to be ruled over without any regard of their natural rights?
So just what is a “civil right”? We have determined that it is not a “Civil right” or a natural right, inalienable right, or an inherent right. It must be that a “civil right” is a legislatively created right referenced supra. These “civil rights” are offered to a lesser class of citizens, people, persons, and individuals. People, Persons, and Citizens have natural rights (“Civil rights”). Who are these lesser class people, persons, individuals, and citizens? They are not natural born Citizens, Persons, or People. They are citizens, persons, and people created by Law.
Created by Law you ask? How can a person be created by Law? Ok here is the answer. Any Person naturally born in any of the 50 states of the American union of nations (several states) are ‘Citizens’ of the state wherein they were born. They are sovereign members of the State body Politic whom the public servants serve. They are a 'natural born' a free Person, Citizen, Individual, a member of the Posterity of People that are the Sovereigns in the United States by Law. They are a product of Natures Law, and Natures God nothing more nothing less. They have unalienable natural rights granted them by the Laws of Nature and Natures God which no man or government can legislate away. They are NOT subjects, serfs, or slaves to any man or government they created.
Our Laws clearly state that 'if you are not born in any of the 50 states' united under the American Constitution 'you are an immigrant, a traveler, a naturalized citizen, person, individual, or body of people or persons such as government or a corporation'. 'These are the persons created by Law' that enjoy the protections of their “civil rights”; which are created, granted, and controlled by Law/government. Naturalized citizens (persons); here in the United States do not hold the same political, and social status as a 'natural born' state Citizen. This can be easily proven at Article II Section I the fifth clause of our Constitution where it states: “No person except a 'natural born Citizen', or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
If you are not born in one of the several states you are not a state Citizen, nor are you a Citizen (Note the capitalization [C]) of the United States, and cannot be elected President. You may be a 'citizen of the United States' (Note the capitalization [c]) that has “civil right[s]” but you are not a Citizen. 'Prior to the adoption of the Constitution there were not any Citizens of the United States as the Law defines them. The union several states, and their State governments did not exist'' until after the adoption of our Constitution. After the adoption of the Constitution the Colonies became States in the ‘union’ of State governments and all the 'free Persons, People, Individuals' living within the several states became”Citizens of the state within the union of nations within the United States of America”.
The People that participated in the founding of our American Republic were not born in the United States. The Colonies were not States in the union until after the Constitution was adopted. Therefore, there were no 'natural born Citizens' at the time of the adoption that meet the qualifications of President. They granted full Citizen[ship] of the United States to these 'free People'. They were not excluded from being President . . . ‘at the time of Adoption . . . '. This was the purpose of this phrase. Today to be a “Citizen (or national) of the United States”; 'you must be born a state Citizen'. All others are 'citizens of the United States' or travelers and do not enjoy the same social and Political status as American nationals (state Citizens). Further, “civil right[s]”; have not been extended to these persons that allows for them to hold the high office of President. There are some people pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to change this qualification for our Executive office.
Again ‘citizens of the United States’ are not the same as ‘state Citizens’. Just about anyone can become a naturalized citizen of the United States, person, or individual “subject to its jurisdiction” (14th Amendment) by agreement. This includes unwitting state Citizens. A Citizen can relinquish their status as a state Citizen, and except the status of being a 'citizen of the United States'. Truth is most having done so and are not aware of it. Many do so with no understanding of it. Why, because they are not properly educated, or advised about the Law[s] of this land. To hold the social political status of state Citizen you must be a natural born state Citizen. Neither naturalization, nor, any Law made by men or government can change where you are born. I personally feel it is by design.
The Law says: “Governments do not grant rights, for they are unalienable rights which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” So how can you waive them? Ignorance, foolhardiness, lack of a proper education, and agreement, are a few examples. Many People have no idea where their “Civil rights” come from much less what they actually are. Their “Civil rights” are violated frequently because they don’t know what they are. They never attempt to enforce them or have them enforced because they don't know how. The trust of the majority People is being violated due to their own willful ignorance (apathy/complacency).
George Washington suggested that the Freemen could loose their Republic if the did not know the Law. I feel we are well on our way. The People trustingly elect, and allow to be hired People to serve them. They 'assume' that these servants know what their “Civil rights” are, and that their servants would never violate them. Their assumptions are false, and not well founded. The fact is that the majority of their elected and hired servants are as ignorant as they are when it comes to knowing the difference between a “Civil right”; and “civil right”. Ever heard the term “that ignorance of the Law is no excuse”?
It is not the Courts (Judiciary) position to teach People the Law, nor is it the duty of the Legislative or Executive branches of government. It is the duty, responsibility, and obligation of the American Citizens to know and understand their Law and Law[s] of this land which regulate and control their servants. Sadly the majority is failing in this obligation. Their failure to uphold their obligations is leading to not only their “Civil rights” being violated, but those of others as well.
You ask how can your failure to uphold your obligation to know and understand American jurisprudence possibly affect other person’s rights. Well first of all if you do not know what your rights are you certainly have no idea what mine are. Thus, if you would see someone violating my rights you would not know my rights were being violated. I could not rely on you as a 'reliable witness' of the violation of my rights. Then if I were to have a witness that knew my rights were violated you could not be Jurist from among my peers. My peers would know where my rights came from, and what they were. They would understand the Law of this nation.
The same would be true if I were charged. My peers would understand that he person bringing the charge would have to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I had injured them or their property. My peers would understand that under the Common law if no injury or damage exists there is no right to action. Further, my peers would also understand that if I was charged with an offence, and I claimed the Law unconstitutional, that they had the right to make that determination. This why they call it 'trial BY jury'.
• “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice US Supreme Court
• “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the fact.” Samuel Chase, US Supreme Court Justice 1796, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
• “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes US supreme Court 1902.
• “The law itself is on trial as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F Stone 12th Chief Justice US supreme Court 1941
• “The pages of history shine on instances of the juries exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge. . .” US V. Dougherty. 473 F. 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)
Judges today frequently suggest that the Jury can only hear and decide facts, and that they will decide the law. If you knew what your rights where when I made the claim of a violation of my rights, and my witness supported my claim, you would likely do the right thing, and have the offender punished. In the event that I was charged with violating some Law/policy 'you' may determine the Law itself in error and repugnant to the Constitution and render a not guilty verdict. This is known as 'jury nullification' which would set a president for the next Citizen that were charged with a violation of repugnant (bad) Law.
But if you setting as a Jury member have no idea what your rights are, you most certainly cannot know what mine are and the result of said trial would have a negative affect on me, as well as, set a president (Case Law) to be used against other free Persons. One day it could be you on trail counting on your 'peers' to protect your rights. Would you prefer a member of the Posterity of People that knew and understood your rights to be a 'jurist' in your case, or a person that was totally ignorant of your rights and the Law?
• “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”-- Ayn Rand
• “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury V Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176. (1803)
People ask: Well if none of the three branches of government have any obligation to teach People what their natural rights are, or the difference between a “Civil right” and ”civil right”; how are they to know? This leads this author to ask you if our elected servants are in fact servants and have no obligation to instruct or otherwise teach People these things who is. The authors’ assumption would be our parents, grandparents, other family, friends, neighbors, and other well intentioned members of our communities such as Ministers, Priests, Rabbis, Pastors, and Preachers.
Understand that this author does not believe in forcing any particular religion on People. That is a decision to be made by an individual of his or her own free will. This author claims to not be at all religious. However, I acknowledge that it is my belief there are authorities 'much higher than men or governments'.
• “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because they have rejected it. (Ref: King James Bible Hosea 4)
Even though this author is not at all religious I would agree that People are destroyed or enslaved by willful ignorance, or a lack of knowledge. Further, it is the opinion of this author that if anyone other than parents, grandparents, family, and friends has an obligation to instruct or teach People it would be the religious leaders. Personally this author feels they are failing in this obligation. In concluding this Chapter this author would say that prudent People would teach or instruct their families, friends, and neighbors just what the difference between natural rights, “Civil rights”; and ”civil rights” are. As parents, grandparents, family, friends, and good neighbors we share in this obligation to our children, grandchildren, and each other.
• Quoting from one of the founders of this nation Thomas Jefferson; “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
This Sovereign American national state Citizen whole heartedly agrees with the expressed opinion of Mr. Jefferson..
Jimmy Freeman
Democracy V Republic
Democracy V Republic
There are two forms of democracy. Both were tried and in practice before the creation of the American form of governance. There are direct representative democracies and indirect representative democracies.
In a direct representative democracy all people considered to be Citizens who meet the qualifications of participation in government have an equal say. Any and all issues concerning the laws of the land, rights, or privileges of the Citizens are set and heard in an open forum, and each Citizen is granted an equal amount of time to express their thoughts before the entire gathering before any vote is taken. The history of Athens in the 4th and 5th Century DC is an example of this form of democracy.
Trials where held in the same fashion. It was very time consuming and slow process. When an emergency arose that needed immediate attention and a response to the situation needed addressing post hast it created problems. As the debating between the Citizens and the final decision (vote) as to what action should be taken could take days, weeks, or even months to conclude. The final decision in many cases benefited the majority of Citizens in the Athenian community while the ‘private natural rights’ of the minority where ignored and abridged for the good of the whole. The minority may well have lost all their personal property and left in a state of total impoverishment for the ‘general welfare and protection’ of the whole.
Early in the 17th Century (1600s) a new more streamlined version democracy was formed in order to streamline and expedite this process. It is what is known as an ‘indirect representative democracy’. Districts were formed and the Citizens chose from within their ranks representatives to represent their districts, before the representatives of the other districts within the nation, and there was a ‘Head of State’ that had the final say in all maters.
In the event of an emergency the Head of State could by executive privilege simply proclaim a state of national emergency and by executive order declare who was going to do what, where, and when, who’s assets, and other property were going to be used to any extent they deemed necessary to assure that the ‘general welfare and protection’ of the nation was secured under the pretext of the good of the whole. This could be done in minutes with one proclamation and signature and the representatives in the districts were bond to comply and obey by the Law.
Our Republic based on democratic principals is similar but very different. It is a blending of the two forms of democratic principals and the Law governs which principal is applicable to the actions taken by our servants. First, the Law defines the People (Citizens) as the Head of State (“In our country the people are sovereign...” AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)).
• The definition of sovereign is: Sovereign. A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy. (Ref: Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition (BLD) Pg. 1395)
Sic, the natural born state Citizens in American are the Heads of State according to the Law that governs. The sovereigns that created this Republic secured all their natural rights by the Supreme Law of the Land.
Constitution of the United States (US. Const.) Article VI Clause 2 “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The natural rights of the sovereigns are defined as:
• Natural rights. Those that grow out of the nature of man and depend on his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society. In re Gogabashvele's Estate, 195 Cal. App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Retr. 77, 91. (Ref. BLD. Pg. 1027).
These rights and others are secured by what are commonly referred to as the ‘Bill of rights’, or the first ten articles in amendment to the US Const. formally adopted and ratified in 1789, and replaced the Articles of Confederation which were adopted in 1781 after the Colonies had declared their independence from the United Kingdom (UK) which was a form on ‘indirect representative democracy’ at the time. The Monarch was the Head of State in the UK (England) and the Parliament were the elected representatives of the ‘subjects’ (citizens).
• “Under our system (American Republic Note added by Author), the people who are 'in England' called subjects are here the sovereign(s).” (U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208)
The Laws of our Republic created several bodies of representatives to serve the sovereigns here. They are known and properly identified as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government each having their own authorities and limitations created by our Law. Our laws require that the sovereigns elect and or appoint people from within our ranks to serve us. These persons are properly known as public servants (servants).
Public servants: A person holding a government office, by election or appointment. (Ref. Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition 1975 (RHCD.) Pg. 1069)
Our system of Laws (Jurisprudence) define the obligations that our servants are to perform diligently and establish precise and strict limitations on any authority they have over themselves in each branch, between the branches, over other persons in our nation, and the sovereigns (We the People) they are to serve.
They are free to create law, rules, regulations, and policies that regulate and govern themselves within each branch without any direct involvement (indirect democracy) of the sovereigns, or persons outside their branch of government. However, they are prohibited from creating any law or rule that directly affects anyone’s rights, privileges, or immunities outside their branch of government without the express or implied consent of those affected by the rule and in particular the sovereigns they serve.
Anytime any branch of our body of servants attempt to create any law, rule, regulation, or policy that affects any private right (natural right) of the sovereigns they serve the issue must be placed on a ballot for the direct vote (direct democracy) of the sovereigns, and even these issues are regulated by law. Even a majority of sovereigns are restrained by the Supreme Law from imposing their will as a collective to force any sovereign individual, or minority to give up any natural right[s] secured by our Law. The ‘equal protection clause’ prohibits this conduct.
• US Const. Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”(Empasis added by author)
A private right is personal private property which belongs to the individual sovereign or minority involved. Our ‘public servants’ (acting in an indirect representative capacity), or the majority of sovereigns (acting in a direct representative capacity) can not arbitrarily abridge, deny, or strip away from any sovereign individual or minority their liberty to exercise a private right without just compensation. This IS the Supreme Law of THIS land.
There is no way for anyone to conclude and place a value on the ‘private right’ of a sovereign individual or minority. Sic, just compensation cannot be calculated without the express or implied consent of the sovereign[s] affected by the will of the majority of sovereigns (Mob rule) acting directly by ballot or a body of ‘public servants’ acting indirectly by arbitration.
• “Governments do not grant rights; for they are unalienable rights, which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757
• ‘Legislature can name any Privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by any means other than an income tax’, ‘but legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege’.(Note: Our servants cannot proclaim a right to be a privilege and then regulate it.)
The American system of jurisprudences (Constitutional Republic ‘governed by law’) secures and protects the natural rights of individuals, and minorities from the Mob rule principals of democracy of either sort.
Jimmy Freeman
There are two forms of democracy. Both were tried and in practice before the creation of the American form of governance. There are direct representative democracies and indirect representative democracies.
In a direct representative democracy all people considered to be Citizens who meet the qualifications of participation in government have an equal say. Any and all issues concerning the laws of the land, rights, or privileges of the Citizens are set and heard in an open forum, and each Citizen is granted an equal amount of time to express their thoughts before the entire gathering before any vote is taken. The history of Athens in the 4th and 5th Century DC is an example of this form of democracy.
Trials where held in the same fashion. It was very time consuming and slow process. When an emergency arose that needed immediate attention and a response to the situation needed addressing post hast it created problems. As the debating between the Citizens and the final decision (vote) as to what action should be taken could take days, weeks, or even months to conclude. The final decision in many cases benefited the majority of Citizens in the Athenian community while the ‘private natural rights’ of the minority where ignored and abridged for the good of the whole. The minority may well have lost all their personal property and left in a state of total impoverishment for the ‘general welfare and protection’ of the whole.
Early in the 17th Century (1600s) a new more streamlined version democracy was formed in order to streamline and expedite this process. It is what is known as an ‘indirect representative democracy’. Districts were formed and the Citizens chose from within their ranks representatives to represent their districts, before the representatives of the other districts within the nation, and there was a ‘Head of State’ that had the final say in all maters.
In the event of an emergency the Head of State could by executive privilege simply proclaim a state of national emergency and by executive order declare who was going to do what, where, and when, who’s assets, and other property were going to be used to any extent they deemed necessary to assure that the ‘general welfare and protection’ of the nation was secured under the pretext of the good of the whole. This could be done in minutes with one proclamation and signature and the representatives in the districts were bond to comply and obey by the Law.
Our Republic based on democratic principals is similar but very different. It is a blending of the two forms of democratic principals and the Law governs which principal is applicable to the actions taken by our servants. First, the Law defines the People (Citizens) as the Head of State (“In our country the people are sovereign...” AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)).
• The definition of sovereign is: Sovereign. A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy. (Ref: Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition (BLD) Pg. 1395)
Sic, the natural born state Citizens in American are the Heads of State according to the Law that governs. The sovereigns that created this Republic secured all their natural rights by the Supreme Law of the Land.
Constitution of the United States (US. Const.) Article VI Clause 2 “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The natural rights of the sovereigns are defined as:
• Natural rights. Those that grow out of the nature of man and depend on his personality and are distinguished from those which are created by positive laws enacted by duly constituted government to create an orderly civilized society. In re Gogabashvele's Estate, 195 Cal. App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Retr. 77, 91. (Ref. BLD. Pg. 1027).
These rights and others are secured by what are commonly referred to as the ‘Bill of rights’, or the first ten articles in amendment to the US Const. formally adopted and ratified in 1789, and replaced the Articles of Confederation which were adopted in 1781 after the Colonies had declared their independence from the United Kingdom (UK) which was a form on ‘indirect representative democracy’ at the time. The Monarch was the Head of State in the UK (England) and the Parliament were the elected representatives of the ‘subjects’ (citizens).
• “Under our system (American Republic Note added by Author), the people who are 'in England' called subjects are here the sovereign(s).” (U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208)
The Laws of our Republic created several bodies of representatives to serve the sovereigns here. They are known and properly identified as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government each having their own authorities and limitations created by our Law. Our laws require that the sovereigns elect and or appoint people from within our ranks to serve us. These persons are properly known as public servants (servants).
Public servants: A person holding a government office, by election or appointment. (Ref. Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition 1975 (RHCD.) Pg. 1069)
Our system of Laws (Jurisprudence) define the obligations that our servants are to perform diligently and establish precise and strict limitations on any authority they have over themselves in each branch, between the branches, over other persons in our nation, and the sovereigns (We the People) they are to serve.
They are free to create law, rules, regulations, and policies that regulate and govern themselves within each branch without any direct involvement (indirect democracy) of the sovereigns, or persons outside their branch of government. However, they are prohibited from creating any law or rule that directly affects anyone’s rights, privileges, or immunities outside their branch of government without the express or implied consent of those affected by the rule and in particular the sovereigns they serve.
Anytime any branch of our body of servants attempt to create any law, rule, regulation, or policy that affects any private right (natural right) of the sovereigns they serve the issue must be placed on a ballot for the direct vote (direct democracy) of the sovereigns, and even these issues are regulated by law. Even a majority of sovereigns are restrained by the Supreme Law from imposing their will as a collective to force any sovereign individual, or minority to give up any natural right[s] secured by our Law. The ‘equal protection clause’ prohibits this conduct.
• US Const. Amendment V “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”(Empasis added by author)
A private right is personal private property which belongs to the individual sovereign or minority involved. Our ‘public servants’ (acting in an indirect representative capacity), or the majority of sovereigns (acting in a direct representative capacity) can not arbitrarily abridge, deny, or strip away from any sovereign individual or minority their liberty to exercise a private right without just compensation. This IS the Supreme Law of THIS land.
There is no way for anyone to conclude and place a value on the ‘private right’ of a sovereign individual or minority. Sic, just compensation cannot be calculated without the express or implied consent of the sovereign[s] affected by the will of the majority of sovereigns (Mob rule) acting directly by ballot or a body of ‘public servants’ acting indirectly by arbitration.
• “Governments do not grant rights; for they are unalienable rights, which cannot be bartered away, given away, or taken away...government can only secure those rights.” Butchers Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, at 756-757
• ‘Legislature can name any Privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by any means other than an income tax’, ‘but legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege’.(Note: Our servants cannot proclaim a right to be a privilege and then regulate it.)
The American system of jurisprudences (Constitutional Republic ‘governed by law’) secures and protects the natural rights of individuals, and minorities from the Mob rule principals of democracy of either sort.
Jimmy Freeman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)